UNUSUAL PROSECUTION

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11652, 17 October 1923, Page 2

UNUSUAL PROSECUTION

PUBLICATION OF A LETTER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS. UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE. A prosecution of an unsual kind came before the Arbitration Court yesterday, when Blundell Bros., proprietors of the *‘Evening Post,” were charged with publishing matter likely to prejudice a dispute before the Conciliation Council. The matter complained of by the Inspector of Factories, who instituted the proceedings, was an anonymous letter signed “Awah-uri,” when the hotel and restaurant workers and employers’ dispute was under consideration. It was the first occasion to the knowledge of the judge that such a charge had been laid under this section. Under the circumstances, a nominal penalty, the costs of the case, were imposed. Mr Justice Frazer presided. Mr A. Fair, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the inspector, and Mr H. F. O’Leary for the defendants. Mr Fair said that section 15 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act prohibited the publication of matter likely to affect any matter before tlie Conciliation Council. A penalty was provided not exceeding £SO. On June 20th a dispute was filed in connection with the hotel and restaurant workers’ award. A meeting of the Conciliation Council was held' on July 16th, but the dispute was only partly heard, and an adjournment was made until August 10th, the proceedings being reported in the “Evening Post” on July 20tli. The letter complained of as being prejudicial under the section appeared in the newspaper. A CIRCULAR LETTER. Mr Fair held that the letter clearly constituted a breach, and was a gross and palpable offence against the provisions of the Act. A circular letter had been sent round to the various newspapeT-s previously drawing attention to the provisions of this section. BREACH ADMITTED. Mr O’Leary said that the defendants would admit that there had been a breach. The letter was received from a small town or district some distance from Wellington, and the editor looked upon it as a letter which would he of interest to its readers, and it was published, it so happening that the matter in question was before the Conciliation Council. It was undoubtedly an act of omission. Counsel said it was an unintentional mistake that the matter had got into the paper at such a time. He stated that this section of the Act had been on the statute book for some fifteen years, and this was the first prosecution .

Mr Fair: One other prosecution is known. BROUGHT AS A WARNING.

Mr Justice Frazer said he quite recognised the difficulties of newspaper editors in discriminating in connection with correspondence sent in. However, it appeared as if a prosecution had been undertaken on this occasion for the purpose of warning others of the existence of this section of the Act, rather than to press for a substantial penalty. Unfortunately, in the present case, the letter had influenced the Conciliation Council proceedings. His Honour was satisfied, notwithstanding, that there had been no deliberate attempt to prejudicially affect the proceedings of the council. The defendants were ordered to pay ooats, amounting to £3 3s.